Thomas Eizinger
Thomas Eizinger
@mxinden I've reduced the checking of feature matrices down to a select few transports. That keeps the combinations at a reasonable level such that we don't need to specify `depth`....
@mxinden Feel free to merge the companion PR (https://github.com/libp2p/github-mgmt/pull/198) and this at any time.
> @mxinden Feel free to merge the companion PR ([libp2p/github-mgmt#198](https://github.com/libp2p/github-mgmt/pull/198)) and this at any time. @mxinden This would be ready if the companion PR is also merged.
Yeah I am not sure what is going on with CI at the moment.
> I see it was merged so ill would like to tackle this one (will do the other one in a separate pr if nobody else wish to do it)...
> But I don't really like having the list of things that we wan't to strip. It feels like something that might cause a bug later on, but I honestly...
> With the latest revisions, I would feel comfortable to present the changes I made at the next Open Maintainers call to gather feedback. If that's alright with @mxinden and...
> To make sure we are on the same page, I would expect the static [`libp2p_tcp::Config::port_reuse`](https://docs.rs/libp2p-tcp/latest/libp2p_tcp/struct.Config.html#method.port_reuse) to go away, as we now have the dynamic configuration through `DialOpts`. Me too!
> The test cases for libp2p-swarm and libp2p-tcp should pass now. Awesome! I'll have a look in detail today.
> On my machine, the CI passes now. I hope I have implemented all your suggestions. Can you run `cargo clippy --all-features --all-targets` with a recent nightly compiler? That should...